LEAGUE OF EDUCATIONAL VOTERS, a
Washington non-profit corporation;
WASHINGTON EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit
corporation: LAURIE JINKINS, an individual
taxpayer and Washington State Representative;
DAVID FROCKT, an individual taxpayer and
‘Washington State Senator; JAMIE
PEDERSON, an individual taxpayer and
Washington State Representative; ROBERT
UTTER, an individual taxpayer and former
Chief Justice of the Washington Supreme
Court; KIM BIELSKI, an individual taxpayer;
ANDY BUNN, an individual taxpayer;
REBECCA BUNN, an individual taxpayer;
REUVEN CARLYLE, an individual taxpayer
and Washington State Representative; JOHN
CHESBROUGH, an individual taxpayer; DEB
EDDY, an individual taxpayer and Washington
State Representative; SAM HUNT. an
individual taxpayer and Washington State
Representative; AMY MCKENNEY, an
vidual taxpayer; KURT MILLER, an
individual taxpayer and President of the
Tacoma Publie Schools Board of Directors;
JIM MOELLER, an individual taxpayer and
Washington State Representative; TIMM
ORMSBY, an individual taxpayer ar
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page |
Washington State Representative; RYAN
HON. BRUCE E, HELLER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KING
25185-3 SEA
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Judge Bruce B. Heller
King County Superior Court
S16 Thial Avenue
Scatie, WA 9104
(206) 296.90852
23
24
PAINTER, an individual taxpayer; ERIC
PETTIGREW, an individual taxpayer and
Washington State Representative; CHRIS
REYKDAL, an individual taxpayer,
Washington State Representative and
Tumwater Schoo! Board Member; CINDY
RYU, an individual taxpayer and Washington
State Representative; MIKE SELLS, an
individual taxpayer and Washington State
Representative; KRISTIN SKANDERUP, an.
dividual taxpayer,
Plaimifts,
v
The State of Washington; CHRISTINE,
GREGOIRE, in her official capacity as
Governor of the State of Washington,
Defendants,
1. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of RCW 34.135.034, This statute requires that
any tax increases passed by the legislature be approved by two-thirds of both houses. ‘The
statute also provides that any tax inereases that will result in expenditures in excess of the state
expenditure limit shall not take effect until approved by the voters.
‘The parties here do not dispute that the citizens of the State of Wash
yeton ean require
two-thirds majority in the legislature for passage of tax increases. Rather, the issue presented
in this case is whether such a supermajority requirement can be implemented through the
initi
ive process or whether an amendment to the Washington Constitution is required.
Secondly, is a constitutional amendment necessary before the legislature can be required to
MEMORANDUM OPINION Budge Bruce F. Heller
> king County Superior Court
Page 2 ™ 516 Third Avenve
Seal, WA 98104
(246) 296.90851 | submit all expenditures in excess of the state expenditure limit to the voters for approval (“the
2. | mandatory referendum requirement”),
This matter js before the court on cross motions for summary judginent.
4 I. BACKGROUND FACTS
In 1993, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure 601, which provided: “[AJny
ses state revenue or requires
6, | action or combination of actions by the legislature that r
revenue-neutral tax shifts may be taken only if approved by a two-thirds vote of each hou
7
g_ | 94(). 1-601 also provided that if legislative action resulted in “expenditures in excess of the
g__| State expenditure limit, then the action of the legislature shall not take effect until approved by
o |" vote of the people at a November general election.” § 4(2). Both requirements have been
enacted into a statute, RCW 43.135.034,
" For most of the last 16 years, the supermajority requirement has been in effect, except
e for relatively brief periods when it was suspended by a majority of the legislature. Under the
8 Washington Constitution, a two-thirds majority of the legislature is necessary to suspend an
"4 J nitive within two years ofits passage. Wash. Const rt. § 1(€. The legislature has been
18, unable to suspend the supermajority requirement by a majority vote for much of the last 16
"6 | years because of three separate ballot reenactments ofthe supermajority requirement —
'7 | Referendum 49 in 1998, 1-960 in 2007 and I-1053 in 2011, On January 6, 2012, [1185 was
'8 | ited. Iapproved by the voters, it would reenact the supermajority requirement upon
19 | expiration of the two year period following the effective date of 1-1053.
20 Prior to the effective date of the original supermajority provision in 1-609 — July 1,
21 | 1995 —a lawsuit was filed asking our Supreme Court to prohibit its implementation. Walker v
22 | Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). The court held that since I-601 had not yet gone
23. | MEMORANDUM OPINION Budge Bruce feller
P ing County Superior Court
Page 3 516 Thiel Avenue
a Seattle, WA D810
206) 296.9088